Family Leave

Family Leave may make it to New Jersey. Senate bill S786 was approved by committee today and will be sent to the full state Senate for consideration. But not if the Chamber of Commerce and its allies have their way. That, by the way, should include the ideologically driven concern trolls that frequent these environs.

On the anti-government side, the rhetoric has been ramped up to inspire fear of impending disaster. Their arguments are driven by the ideology distilled into the single Milton Friedman statement, "If you put the government in charge of the Sahara desert, in five years there will be a shortage of sand." In other words, it's a knee-jerk rejection of policy because it is proposed by the government. The arguments are the same that are trotted out for every single proposal that comes down the pike: it hurts business, it increases the tax burden on employees, it will cost taxpayer money, it adds to regulatory burden, it doesn't allow for flexibility, it hurts competition...did I forget anything?

These are ideological arguments masquerading as policy questions, and in some ways, they are positioned to posion the debate no matter which way it goes. There aren't any figures associated with them, they are just asserted as fact in such a way as to brook no question and cut off debate. There are some valid policy questions that can be taken from those ideological statements, but they aren't being asked. They aren't being debated. They aren't really being considered.

Exactly how, for example, does it hurt a business to allow a worker to take off for up to six weeks and get a partial paycheck from a special employee-supported fund? There's no way it hurts them financially. The employee doesn't draw their paycheck while on Family Medical Leave (FML). If the employee must be replaced, then a temporary worker is brought in at reduced pay without benefits. If anything, the business comes out ahead.

As far as increasing taxes is concerned, the maximum contribution will be a dollar a week. At minimum-wage, only thirty-three cents per week would be taken. In return, workers get the opportunity to take six weeks to provide extra attention to family members in case of birth or death. Anyone who is positioned to where that isn't a concern is either to be envied - if it's because money and employment isn't a consideration - or pitied - in the case they simply have no family to experience birth or death. Either way, it's an incredible value for New Jersey's workers at very little cost to them (and, again, no cost whatsoever to their employer). If New Jersey's workers can't afford this program, then the problem lies with laws that allow employers to pay less than a worker can live on.

It will only cost taxpayers money to the extent that public employees will have to work overtime because someone actually uses their FML benefits. The same argument can be made (and is) about public employees having paid vacation. And it is correct that overtime ultimately gets paid by taxpayers because that is where the public employees' pay comes from. But, if you notice, this argument applies equally well to every single business in the state. Stop 'N' Shop, for example, forces me to pay slightly more for my groceries because they know they will have to, from time-to-time, pay a bit of overtime. But ideologues don't want you to think about that because, well, you might just get the idea that they don't want you to take vacation because it hurts your boss's bottom line.

Note that this is not "Sit on the Beach for your Mental Health Leave". We are talking about allowing faithful workers who have a sick family member - or who have an addition to their family - to take a few days off to deal with it. First of all, an employee who is worried about their parent, child, or spouse, is not an employee who is living up to their productive potential. Second of all, it is morally the right thing to do. In these cases, in my experience, a person's co-workers will often pitch in and carry a little extra load as a show of solidarity and humanity for their troubled co-worker. Making that an official policy so that no one's job gets threatened for this very human act of compassion is showing workers that their contribution to our society is valued beyond a paycheck. It's a recognition that a paycheck is most valuable when it allows us to provide our family with what they need most - our presence.

As far as adding to regulatory burden, it's unclear - beyond a few pages of paperwork - what burden is being discussed. The employee is charged with applying for leave, obtaining medical and/or legal documentation, and with actually - in most cases - taking a pay cut in order to take care of their family. And, having been in positions where I could not take time off for family emergencies, I have to say that employees will be more than happy to do the paperwork when it is needed.

The idea that New Jersey is uncompetitive for businesses should be derided and rejected on its face as baseless. It should be noted that those organizations running around rating our state so poorly on its business environment are, in fact, ideologically-driven hit squads. Such things as work-place safety laws (such as requiring chain guards so workers don't have their fingers pinched off by machinery), food inspection (such as ensuring that our hamburgers aren't full of e. coli bacteria), and funding for schools (so our children can understand the instructions their employers give them) are considered to restrict business. I'm not saying it's easy to make a business profitable - or that it couldn't be easier - but we are hardly destroying our business base (and anyone who wants to systematically prove that is welcome to do so).

Similarly, the argument about flexibility is a red herring. The only flexibility this would kill is the flexibility to offer nothing or next to nothing. Any employer is able to exceed the state FML mandates. I don't expect them to do so - just as I don't expect any employer to exceed the federal requirements for federal FMLA. But it's possible.

And competition? If anything, this will make more people want to work in Jersey where they can take advantage of FML. The argument should not be about who else is doing it (so far, California and Washington state). The argument should be about if it's the right thing to do and the right way to do it. If so, then we should do it. If it hurts our state economy because other states refuse to protect workers, then the proper action would be to expand federal FMLA. But, guess what? The Chamber and its buddies aren't doing that. Because it isn't really about competition, it's about stopping Family Medical Leave no matter what.

I have to say, my support for the FML is qualified. I don't think it goes far enough. The maximum payout of $300 is horrendously low - who can live on that in NJ? Six weeks is - in some cases - not enough. But it is good enough and it is better than what we have in place now. Those who refuse to believe so are fortunate not to have ever been caught in a situation where they had to choose whether or not to remain employed or take care of a family member. But they should not stand in the way of those of us who do have a need for such an insurance policy.